Like everything this administration does, President Obama’s proposed draft for the authorization of military force (AUMF) is a purely political document, starting with its conception. After all, US forces are already in Iraq – 3,000 of them – "advising" Iraqi and Kurdish troops. Now, suddenly, the White House sends this latest AUMF to Congress, which raises an issue: if the AUMF fails to pass, will US forces pick up and leave? To ask the question is to answer it: of course not.
The President made this clear enough in his message accompanying the draft AUMF text, which notes "US military forces are conducting a systematic campaign of airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria,” and goes on to aver that "existing statutes provide me with the authority I need to take these actions."
Shorter Obama: I don’t need you guys, but I’m asking anyway.
But why bother? It’s all about politics. Yes, I know – shocking, isn’t it? I mean, there’s gambling going on in this casino!
The President is paving the way for his successor, who he hopes will be one Hillary Rodham Clinton, and whose foreign policy principles are a bit more openly hawkish than his own. Before she assumes office, he wants Congress’s signature on a blank check for whatever price she is willing to pay for continued US hegemony in the Middle East – while still paying lip service to the idea of a "limited" war.
This is something the smarter breed of criminals do all the time: prepare an alibi in advance and spread the responsibility far and wide. It is also in line with the first principle of a libertarian theory of foreign affairs, what I call "libertarian realism": the idea that foreign policy is merely domestic politics extended beyond our borders. Whatever overseas policies our fearless leaders in Washington choose to pursue are concerned exclusively with the task of perpetuating and expanding their own power and prestige on the home front. Obama’s AUMF is a classic example of this principle in action.
A close reading of the text underscores its brazenly political character, which is revealed in all its inglorious ambiguity in the very first phrase, defining the purpose of the legislation:
"To authorize the limited use of the United States Armed Forces against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant."
Since all wars come to an end, there is no such thing as the "unlimited" use of force. Furthermore, even within a more realistic framework, "limited" can mean any number of things, e.g. we won’t use nuclear weapons – hardly a reassuring constraint. So what purpose does this phraseology serve?
Again, the whole point of this AUMF is purely political: it’s designed, from beginning to end, to give the President and his party political cover if – or, rather, when – the whole enterprise backfires, as it surely will. In case the GOP wins the White House, it gives the Democrats the space to say: "Well, we said limited, and you guys went out of bounds!" It is also meant to reassure Democratic members of Congress that they can safely vote for it without incurring the wrath of their constituents, who by this time are highly suspicious of anything that promises to suck us into another quagmire – and who have had quite enough of Iraq, thank you.
As we shall see, however, the resolution is so vague that, as Marjorie Cohn, professor at San Diego’s Thomas Jefferson School of Law, puts it:
"Although the proposed AUMF contains some purported limitations, President Obama is essentially asking Congress to bless endless war against anyone he wants, wherever he wants."
This ambiguity is hardly an accident, as a winking Josh Earnest, White House spokesman, acknowledged to reporters. Asked about the resolution’s vagueness, Earnest admitted it was "intentionally" written so in order to give the President the "flexibility" to deal with the "chaotic" progress of a military conflict as it unfolds.
In Washington, D.C., truth is infinitely elastic, as the text of the AUMF makes abundantly clear. The main body of the resolution starts out with the mandatory threat inflation that has justified every post-9/11 intervention right up to the present day:
"Whereas the terrorist organization that has referred to itself as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and various other names (in this resolution referred to as ‘ISIL’) poses a grave threat to the people and territorial integrity of Iraq and Syria, regional stability, and the national security interests of the United States and its allies and partners;
"Whereas ISIL holds significant territory in Iraq and Syria and has stated its intention to seize more territory and demonstrated the capability to do so;
"Whereas ISIL leaders have stated that they intend to conduct terrorist attacks internationally, including against the United States, its citizens, and interests …"
As Big Daddy said to Brick in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof:
"Didn’t you notice a powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity in this room?"
ISIL, in case anyone hasn’t noticed, is already in retreat, having been flushed out of Kobani and left its dead unburied. As for Iraq, it was long ago dismembered – indeed, from the moment we invaded – and ISIL is merely feeding on the corpse. And what’s this touching concern with the territorial integrity of Bashar al-Assad’s domain? Having spent millions arming and training Syria’s Islamic rebels – most of whom have now gone over to ISIL – Washington’s crocodile tears over the loss of that country’s "territorial integrity" seems to lack …integrity.
By the time we get to the punch line – the alleged danger of ISIL launching a terrorist attack here in the United States – the odor of mendacity is so overpowering that one feels faint. So what is the evidence for an imminent ISIL assault, to be followed by the imposition of Sharia law from sea to shining sea? Well, there is none – except for the fact that "ISIL leaders have stated" this is their intent.
Can it really be true that the United States is obliged to mobilize its forces and go to war every time some band of lunatics proclaims its goal of world conquest? ISIL has yet to reach Baghdad – so why posit they’re on their way to Baltimore?
ISIL, we are told, has "threatened genocide" and "committed vicious acts of violence" against every ethnic and religious group in the region – but how, one might ask, is this different than, say, Boko Haram, or any number of other crazed cults that infest the earth, from Africa to Eastasia? If we invert the sage advice of the wisest of the Founders, who warned us not to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy, then we doom ourselves to perpetual war.
But, then again, that’s the idea.
We are treated to a list of American citizens killed by ISIL, a list that will have to be updated now and then as more journalists and others somehow wander into a region where death is more than an even chance. Which raises the question: are we committed to going to war in order to avenge each and every American who gets into trouble – and loses their life – overseas? A journalist or aid worker who travels to a war zone knowingly puts his or her life at risk: must the US government assume those risks? If so, our military is going to be awfully busy for the next hundred years.
The rest of the whereases are merely a collection of political talking points, each aimed at a particular domestic constituency. Here’s one for the feminists:
"Whereas ISIL has targeted innocent women and girls with horrific acts of violence, including abduction, enslavement, torture, rape, and forced marriage …"
This perfectly describes the marriage rituals of Krygyzstan. By the "logic" of the AUMF, we have a moral obligation to invade that Central Asian country and bring this bit of local color to a full stop. What? You don’t think that’s a good idea? What kind of moral monster are you?
These political talking points are followed by a rather cynical series of statements that basically consist of the Obama administration thumbing its nose at Congress – and the Constitution. While the latter clearly states that only Congress has the power to make war, this administration – and every one since Truman – has ignored the law of the land, and the Obamaites throw this in our faces by stating the facts:
"Whereas the United States has taken military action against ISIL in accordance with its inherent right of individual and collective self-defense …"
It wasn’t necessary to add: "and what are you going to do about it?"
Having disposed of the whereases, let’s get down to the therefores, only one of which has any meaning – although, typically, it is meaningful only insofar as it is meaningless:
"SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized, subject to the limitations in subsection (c), to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines to be necessary and appropriate against ISIL or associated persons or forces as defined in section 5….
" (c) LIMITATIONS.—
The authority granted in subsection (a) does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations."
So what, exactly, are we to make of this? "The only thing we can safely assume," quipped Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California), "is that whatever mission might be approved in the future, it won’t be called enduring freedom or enduring anything." Historians will no doubt dub it Operation Enduring Folly, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
The above-mentioned Section 5 really lets the cat out of the bag, free to roam far and wide:
"SEC. 5. ASSOCIATED PERSONS OR FORCES DEFINED.
In this joint resolution, the term ‘associated persons or forces’ means individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL or any closely-related successor entity in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners."
ISIL has recently organized an arm of its "caliphate" in Libya, and so this resolution gives the President the power to intervene there as well – which is what enabled the Islamic State to establish its Libyan affiliate in the first place. We can blame Hillary Clinton (and Susan Rice, and Samantha Power) for that, but, really, is the purpose of the US military to go around the world cleaning up the messes left by the Clintons? If so, we’ll be back in Kosovo soon enough.
The President may have a hard time selling this resolution to his own party, although the pressure on Democrats to vote yes will be great given Hillary’s presumed support. The apparent collapse of the anti-interventionist "progressive" wing of the party, which seems to be preparing for permanent hibernation, also argues for a rapid capitulation. And as much as the Lindsey Graham wing of the GOP complains that the resolution is a) unnecessary, and b) doesn’t go nearly far enough, they’ll wind up voting for it anyway – because it opens the door to a much wider war than Obama would have us believe.
That leaves the libertarian wing of the GOP, which has stubbornly resisted any new interventions abroad, at least up until now. Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), who is running for President, is their leader, but has had some trouble actually leading on this issue, what with his aborted call to issue a formal declaration of war (which I’ve critiqued elsewhere) and his endorsement of the bombing campaign. Yet lately he’s taken a somewhat harder line, while still evading the question of how he’ll actually vote on the AUMF.
On the one hand, he could make a highly visible and sustained effort to recreate the "Amash coalition" – the right-left alliance that nearly defunded the National Security Agency’s ability to spy on Americans – and lead an effort to impose real limits on US intervention. In this scenario, failing that, he would vote no. On the other hand, he could simply throw up his hands and vote yes out of fear of being branded an "isolationist" – and lose his distinctive brand as a different kind of Republican.
This is a test for him, and one hopes he’ll pass it – and hold on to his base.
As for the rest of us – and I don’t just mean libertarians – the choice is clear enough. Our answer to the War Party must be loud and unequivocal: "No, no, a thousand times no!"
We’ve been here before – remember? The last time they corralled us into a war in Iraq they handed out a bunch of cock-and-bull stories about "weapons of mass destruction" and Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent links to the 9/11 attacks. This time they aren’t bothering with any of that: it’s just pure horror stories plus the laughable contention that ISIL represents a credible threat to the US homeland.
It’s time to put a stop to this nonsense. Whatever support the American people are demonstrating for playing this same tired game – and those polls expressly show no support for US troops on the ground – will dissipate once we begin to wade into the high weeds.
It’s time for a preemptive strike at the War Party’s congressional fortress. Please call your congressional representatives today and urge them to vote no on the AUMF – because we can win this one. Just as we did last time around, when Obama decided it was time to bomb Syria. One by one, members of Congress who were inclined to authorize that aborted military campaign, backed away when faced with a deluge of outraged calls from constituents.
We can do it again! Please make that call today – because the future of this country, not to mention the peace of the world, depends on it.
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going here. But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.
I’ve written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon (ISI Books, 2008).
You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here.
Read more by Justin Raimondo
- Free Ruslan Kotsaba! – February 10th, 2015
- Kiev’s Bloody War Is Backfiring – February 8th, 2015
- The Sins of Brian Williams – February 5th, 2015
- Sequester the Empire – February 3rd, 2015
- Hillary’s War – February 1st, 2015
Just Say ‘No’ to the AUMF! by Justin Raimondo | Official site of DJ Michael Heath
February 13th, 2015 at 1:10 am
[…] by TonyDiGerolamo [link] […]
Lee Luttrell
February 13th, 2015 at 2:11 am
All of this is based on one pretext:
Would you rather fight them "over there" or fight them here?
Most Americans would agree that we need to fight them "over there."
The correct answer is to "fight them here."
If we had done this, there never would of been a Abu Garib prison, a Gitmo, black sites in remote countries, kidnapping, rendition, torture, drone strikes, millions of displaced people, trillions of dollars spent, failed states, unwarranted spying on friendly countries and thousands of dead and disabled soldiers.
Americas cowardice of not facing our own threats on our own soil, caused us to trash everything we ever stood for that made this the greatest country in the world. This is the New American Exceptualism.
Montaigne
February 13th, 2015 at 2:53 am
A kind of Historical Social Lunacy seems to have grown to perfection in the USA. You don't face the realities, only perople's perceptions. On the premise, that truth does not exist or matter. Not for human people, not for persons trying to get a meaningful life with real convictions
So you have become perhaps History's greatest infectors and destroyers of human values and convictions. Living only on facricated winks and nods, prepared by criminal circles in the very heart of power in you country.
And that is, what a patriot are supposed to value above anything else? An immense joke on mankind!
The perspective itself makes its consequences meaningless and evil! What do you do with a life threatening illness? Destroy/isolate the disease, and remove/isolate/kill when necessary the smitten bearers and destroyers.
Mark
February 13th, 2015 at 4:51 am
What a cumbersome title, The Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant…sheesh.
In the spirit of using the victims of violence to promote statism, I would like to propose we shorten the title to: Kayla's Law. You know, like all the tightening of the drunk driving laws, anti-child abuse laws, etc. It can perpetuate the epic tale of the pretty young American girl killed by the masked evil-doers. (Ok, so the Jordanians bombed the building she was in and she was killed and ISIS had the decency to personally contact her parents to deliver the bad news and they didn't dump her body overboard to destroy evidence and I guess Rachel Corrie just wasn't pretty enough or killed by the right people but, no matter).
It also suits the smarmy disingenuousness of the political hacks that crafted this travesty.
didi
February 13th, 2015 at 4:57 am
AU My Foot!
richard vajs
February 13th, 2015 at 5:53 am
Justin, Your article reflects, to me, a lot of cynicism – congratulations, those of us who like our truth straight, appreciate "calling it as it is" without a lot of flag ceremony.. But, of course, in a land full of liars and bullsh-t dreamers, Cassandras don't get a lot of respect. I, intend to send you a donation – you'll need it – the liars and the bullsh-t dreamers won't.
Salem
February 13th, 2015 at 6:59 am
Operation Gladio
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9EFT9tCUAE70ny.jpg
Is the US army directing ISIS???
Generalissimo X
February 13th, 2015 at 7:02 am
in a word: yes.
Generalissimo X
February 13th, 2015 at 7:08 am
"Whereas ISIL has targeted innocent women and girls with horrific acts of violence, including abduction, enslavement, torture, rape, and forced marriage …"
gitmo anyone? drone strikes? blackwater mercs? perhaps obama and his triumvirate of stygian witches/wenches are jealous? and really, since when does uncle sam need a formal declaration of anything to murder and destroy? why even have the pretense of the rule of law…everyone inhabiting the corridors of power is essentially already a war criminal but i guess that's besides the point. the permanent war motif is ripped right out of 1984….just stop bullsh*tting everyone already. here, just use this text. we reserve the right to kill everyone and anyone anywhere anytime from now until forever for any and all reasons whatsoever. sincerely, obama and the pussycats.
Prinzowhales
February 13th, 2015 at 7:35 am
Yes, by all means…pass a bill which will give the Peace Prize winner more authority to kill and maim… and why?–Because we are fighting terrorists that we have armed…that we have trained… that our dearest and bestest friend in the whole wide world–Isra-hell–provides air cover for…that our NUTO allies provide safe haven for…but, again…WHY? Because an American puts herself in harm's way got her perky, go-getter arse whacked?…One has to wonder why ISIS would go to the trouble of snatching her, treating her well and then killing her…perhaps Senator Insane McCain…who knows them and meets with them…could enlighten us…And, lets remember, initially her death was attributed to the vengeful Jordanians…who, hosted the training of many of these killers…sounds like after a weighing of narratives, they decided to pin the death on the folks that Obama wants to use as an excuse to have a three year killing spree anywhere and everywhere…
Before we give too much credence to anything these 'black flaggers' say…lets see what we can learn from our experience with the al Qaeda front and its spokesmen…Who can forget Adam Yahiye Gadahn?–Jewish roots, the grandson of an ADL board member who earned his spurs beating up people outside of mosques in LA…Who then made a career out of being the bogeyman for our front?… and, lets not forget the robust trade in Osama tapes and video reports featuring cuts from old home movies of the al Qaeda leader…who didn't even make it to the FBI wanted list for his alleged 'attack on America'…or, his life in the heart of the Pakistani intelligence community right near a safe house for America's spooks…the huge reward…the wide range of greedy bastards right there…from clinic workers to security people…and the Chris-Kyle-like warriors who killed him and were, in large part, killed themselves…while OBL was giving a nautical funeral conveniently leaving no body to identify or disprove the Regime's fantasy kill…
Having failed miserably to overturn the democratically elected leader of Syria as effortlessly as he did the Ukraine's democratically elected leader…the great Democrat, Barry Obama, wants to up the ante in the Middle East. In less than two days the newly agreed upon Memorandum will go into effect between Kiev and the Donbas republics…
Washington thinks this will give Kiev breathing room so that its military can be whipped into shape to once again take on the republics…What it can't do is bring about a reversal of Kiev's PR disaster and the increasing distaste which it is held by the people of Ukraine. This should increase as foreign loans and aid continue to go through Kiev like sh*t through a goose and Porky and the boys continue to whore the whole of Ukraine like a Galician farm girl in a Haifa brothel…
Meanwhile, the Russians have the advantage of being able to prepare for the renewed war…to place new costs on the European vassals of War Street and the City and build upon its victory in the battle for the hearts and minds of Ukrainians. They will be able to devote themselves to the upcoming onslaught of the US against the Assad regime for which the AUMF is but a cover…
The unaudited FED system provides almost unlimited paper with which wars can be fought…remember the palates of cash being flown into Iraq? Imagine what will be coming to the areas in which the US wants to establish the new Sunni dependency to be carved out of Syria and Iraq. Remember the money that is still missing from the degenerate Proconsulate of Iraq? Obama and the Hawks want to put this show on the road again…this is the Israeli plan and we have the usual AIPAC yard apes in the forefront of the march to war. This is one reason for the street-theater slap fight between Obama and Netanyahu…'Mr. Change' can't be seen as Netanyahu and the Neo-Cons' 'favorite turd'… ISIS is just a name…and that name will disappear with the boots on the ground and the money that will come from being once again called 'moderate' terrorists fighting for the overthrow of the wicked Assad, will bring the 'fighters' flocking back to the 'appropriate' and 'acceptable' terrorist fronts.
follyofwar
February 13th, 2015 at 7:46 am
Outside of her being a democrat, I'd like to know, as Justin reported, why Obama wants Queen Hillary to replace him. Are there no other democrats with the guts to take her on? I thought she was named SOS using the logic of keeping your enemies closer. If we get Hillary we get to keep stupid Susan and shrill Samantha as top aides (oh joy!). This AUMF means nothing anyway, it's all political smoke and mirrors. The next administration would not be bound by it in any case.
RickR30
February 13th, 2015 at 8:00 am
" Which raises the question: are we committed to going to war in order to avenge each and every American who gets into trouble – and loses their life – overseas?"
If Congress says yes, than I suggest US Armed Forces should first and foremost do something about the death of Rachel Corrie.
The idea of Libertarian Realism might have to be refined. Since the days of 9/11, domestic policy has become an extension of foreign policy. In times of empire, the degenerate ruling class doesn't see much distinction between foreign and domestic. They are the rulers of the Universe! When policy, initially foreign and more and more domestic is run by some foreign religious nuts whose agenda is the universalization of the israeli experience, papers like this one, for public consumption, are hardly an expression of any policy. We know very well which ones are the real policy documents that were generated some years ago.
Salem
February 13th, 2015 at 8:12 am
Question:"are we committed to going to war in order to avenge each and every American who gets into trouble – and loses their life – overseas? "
ANSWER:"Rachel Corrie"
Justin Raimondo
February 13th, 2015 at 8:20 am
Thank you, Richard! Your support is very much appreciated.
Salem
February 13th, 2015 at 8:21 am
Most Americans are unwilling to admit the real utmost cause of and the consequence of the the crimes they supported in the first place.As usual,they give themselves rights that they deny all others expect few.They can get angry but not others,they can wage wars but not others,they can seek revenge and be vengeful but not others,and they attack others for the killing of just one American overseas,bu they deny htat to others.
jojo
February 13th, 2015 at 8:25 am
(AMERICANS) "who have had quite enough of Iraq, thank you."
How about Iraq Syria Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Yemen folks had enough of Americans?
Prinzowhales
February 13th, 2015 at 9:03 am
The unfit swine who fills the office of Senator for the State of Oklahoma, Inhofe, head of the Armed Services Committee, is going to support AUMF…just as he supports arming Ukraine…This dirt ball even got caught trying to peddle seven-year old photos of Russian actions in Georgia and elsewhere as proof that they were active in Ukraine…Remember! This important War Pig claims to have been punked by some fascist legislators in Kiev…Due diligence means no more to these b*stards than it meant to John Edwards, Jay Rockefeller and the gang of arsewipes of the Senate 'Intelligence' Committee in the propaganda blitz leading up to the bipartisan war on Iraq…
Voting for a Democrat or a Republican? You deserve what you get! You've learned nothing since 9-11…The nefarious b*stards in Washington are moving forward on all fronts…while your cringing 'leaders' move towards the Center…the war-pigging center.,..,
Prinzowhales
February 13th, 2015 at 9:03 am
The unfit swine who fills the one of the offices of Senator for the State of Oklahoma…Inhofe, head of the Armed Services Committee, is going to support AUMF…just as he supports arming Ukraine…This dirt ball even got caught trying to peddle seven-year old photos of Russian actions in Georgia and elsewhere as proof that they were active in Ukraine…Remember! This important War Pig claims to have been punked by some fascist legislators in Kiev…Due diligence means no more to these b*stards than it meant to John Edwards, Jay Rockefeller and the gang of arsewipes of the Senate 'Intelligence' Committee in the propaganda blitz leading up to the bipartisan war on Iraq…
Voting for a Democrat or a Republican? You deserve what you get! You've learned nothing since 9-11…The nefarious b*stards in Washington are moving forward on all fronts…while your cringing 'leaders' move towards the Center…the war-pigging center.,..,
Ross
February 13th, 2015 at 11:23 am
The other day, my brother was talking to some Canadians who have had enough of Americans.
muggles
February 13th, 2015 at 12:34 pm
ISIL (Daaesh) is no threat to the US or other western nations other than blowback due to outside intervention. Local states may suffer temporary problems but that is not our constitutional obligation to correct. Since ISIL is a largely outside force (foreigners, not locals) it is doomed to failure.
Syria's Assad, the Kurds, the Iraqi Shia militias, Iran all are capable in time of overrunning the Islamic State. This entity, like other states, is born in conquest and bloodshed. It has little economic capability even in ideal circumstances, due to the largely barren area it controls. What can be looted has been, so ammo, money, food, medical supplies, etc. will be increasingly scarce and expensive. Foreigners carrying guns will always be unpopular with locals. They will need to be paid and supplied.
ISIL has no aircraft or heavy weaponry other than the few items they captured. Few if any trained operators of such, and even less ammo, fuel. What infrastructure they have is easily degraded by air.
Left to stew, this "state" will soon crumble amidst internal strife and external pressure. Plus, those half witted young "fighters" with fervor will soon grow disillusioned, sick, tired, hurt and scared. They know that any kind of defeat means death, not capture, if not horrible torture first. Not a great scenario for them, or future recruits paying attention. .
Soon prices will zoom, recruits will desert or cease coming and existing leadership will face bloody internal opposition and blame. The hapless population will at best sit on their hands.
Why is this failed statelet a threat? A few Americans (some either crazy or intel assets) killed, yes. Very bad. Yet when has the US govt. started wars over a handful of unlucky or stupid citizens killed in remote places by factional fighting? True, not usually video taped for YouTube in gristly detail, but that is mere propaganda, not some new reality. Dead is dead, no matter who watches. The US govt doesn't really give a damn about citizens in foreign nations unless they are government employees or highly symbolic.
President Nobel Peace Prize can militarize US intervention for domestic purposes but there is no real need or basis for it. Islamic State is doomed, unless adopted by the Wahabi Saudi establishment as true saviors of the Sunnis. This doesn't seem to be too likely.
As many have said, this is a distraction and while unpleasant, not our problem. Let IS remain like Cuba and N. Korea as examples of what can go wrong when madness, whether "religious" or ideological, takes hold. The Khymer Rouge in Cambodia killed, tortured far more people, millions, including a number of Americans (rarely mentioned). The US did nothing. However sad, that was the right call then. As now.
eric siverson
February 13th, 2015 at 4:05 pm
President Bush clearly gets the blame for what happened to Iraq , Carter should get the blame for what happened in Iran , Reagan should get the Blame for what happened in Afghanistan . Now Obama has set up Libya Syria and Egypt . All of our presidents have done more harm than good with their power they have used .. We have been brought down a lane of destruction . Our destruction . I don't know if we will ever be able to get out of the hole president Obama has put us in . I think these presidents had terrible foreign policy The United States would now be much better off if they had done nothing at all and so would the foreign countries they worked so hard to change . These guys were all working for a world government that may turn out to be the most evil intrusive government the world has ever known .
Just Say ‘No’ to the AUMF! by Justin Raimondo | STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC
February 13th, 2015 at 5:14 pm
[…] http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/02/12/just-say-no-to-the-aumf/ […]
Prinzowhales
February 13th, 2015 at 5:17 pm
No one forced the Senate Intel Com. to accept what was clear to me as BS sitting here in the woods of North Carolina…I actually took the time to write Edwards and the useless Liddy Dole…Like the elderly female salesperson on 'Are you Being Served'…they were "unanimous" in their support for the 'evidence' of Saddam's nefarious WMDs…
If the Senate Intel Committee had not been a rubberstamp for the War Pig Bush and his Neo-Con "butt buddies" they would have called him on the lies and BS. This was a bipartisan war and all of the leadership of the Demopublican Party were on board.
She Said That? 2/13/15 | STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC
February 13th, 2015 at 5:37 pm
[…] http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/02/12/just-say-no-to-the-aumf/ […]